The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ...

Back in the saddle after too long enjoying himself, Katfriend Alberto Bellan has produced the following summaries of last week's substantive Katposts. These will prove really handy for anyone who was enjoying an autumn break or attending the MARQUES Conference in Vienna -- and for those readers who found themselves spending two whole days offline while greeting the Jewish New Year (oh, and a happy new year to all our readers, of whatever creed, colour or cuddliness!) This is the 64th edition of the round-up series ("Will you still need me? Will you still read me, when I'm 64?") -- and we look forward to providing this service for many years to come. Anyway. this is what you missed last week:

Jani recounts the tale of Vancouver Community College v Vancouver Career College2015 BCSC 1470, a challenging case concerning a trade mark used as keyword in online advertising which just decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

By the end of September the Commission is likely to launch a public consultation encompassing, among other things, ISP liability. The past week, Politico leaked the test of the consultation and Eleonora takes a look over it. New kinds of ISP, a possible EU-wide NTD procedure, and a broader liability for “active” providers might be on their way to the EU legal system.

Annsley takes a gander at a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit in the famous case Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby dancing PrinceLenz v Universal Music.

Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) is a High Court, Chancery Division decision addressing a sad story of faxes, Royal Families, and litigation that should end up with a settlement. Jeremy explains.

Collecting Societies provide solutions to a key economic challenge in licensing content: how to license many works by many creators to many customers. How’s the future like for these “natural monopolies”, wonders Nicola?

And what’s the relation between that provision and the intermediaries of the E-Commerce Directive? Eleonora recounts Mr Justice Arnold’s version, which he gave at the 1st iCLIC conference on the role of internet intermediaries in the law enforcement process at the University of Southampton.

In IP’s youthful golden age (ie, the 1980s), IP professionals believed that IP would ultimately be omnipresent as a force for doing creative and inventive good. Today, however, we have to work a lot harder simply not to be ignored. How will all this end up, wonders Neil.